This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
The editorial "Civil unions for all: Gay couples should have equal rights" (Our View, Sept. 5) argued to reserve the term "marriage" "for ceremonies performed and sanctioned by a church or religious group" and "civil unions would become the government-sanctioned joining of two people."
I am a heterosexual female who married the man I love 60 years ago in a civil ceremony that has never been consecrated by any clergy in any church. Am I therefore not "married"? I don't think so.
I resent anyone saying that I cannot use the word "married" to describe my relationship with my spouse. By the same token, I imagine that many same-sex couples likely resent the term "civil union" instead of "marriage" to define their legally sanctioned lifestyle because this term degrades (however unintentionally) the dignity of the people involved.
Jinny Wright
Holladay